Yesterday, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > In my role as bug czar, I've been trying to work through the backlog > of old unexamined bugs. Unfortunately, many of them (a) have very > little information and (b) are from a long time ago. A good example > is this one: http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?cmd=view&pr=9481 > > There are a few options here: > 1. Close old (how old?) bugs that don't have enough information to > triage/reproduce. > 2. Put them in the "feedback" state, with a general request for more > information. > 3. Attempt to guess at what component this belongs to, and assign it > that way. > 4. Leave it in the current state. > > I think 3 and 4 are both unacceptable. I'm leaning toward 2. The > major drawback of 2 vs 1 is that we accumulate lots of bugs that > nothing will ever happen with. The major drawback of 1 is that we're > saying to someone who took the time to report a bug "we didn't care > about this bug at the time, so now we're closing it".
I think that a sensible choice would be to combine #1 and #2: decide that PRs that have been in feedback state for a while are retired. It's easy to do this -- here's a query that shows all of these PRs sorted by date of last modification: http://bugs.racket-lang.org/query/?State=feedback;columns=Category;columns=Synopsis;columns=Last-Modified;sortby=Last-Modified;cmd=submit%20query Looks like there are very few of them and most could be closed. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
